In a bold move aimed at reviving a renewable energy program struggling to bounce back from a string of bankruptcies (investing in the future isn’t easy), President Barack Obama[2] once again promised that if elected he will not only give courageous speeches on immigration reform similar to the ones he gave in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, but will recycle entire paragraphs of his old remarks in order to conserve teleprompter electrons.

The Romney campaign was quick to condemn the president, pointing out that Mitt would never recycle campaign pledges, preferring instead to promise bold new initiatives designed to repeal programs he once favored.

Pivoting off criticism that many of his speeches and promises are starting to sound familiar, the president assured prospective voters that this is all part of a carefully thought-out “campaign pledge sustainability program”—the real objectives of which he’ll be able to share as soon he doesn’t have to worry about reelection.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney fended off requests to clarify that remark. “This is the most transparent administration that has ever occupied the White House,” Carney repeated. And repeated. And repeated. Until an alert staffer had the presence of mind to reset Carney’s animatronics programming unit.

An overnight Rasmussen poll of 500 registered voters who responded to robotic phone calls asking them to, “Press 1 if you believe in campaign pledge recycling” indicated massive support for dredging up unfulfilled past promises. Sixty-eight percent responded positively to a series of recycled campaign pledges that included the word “fairness,” while a strong plurality were willing to swallow any repeat promise that ended with the totemic phrase “shared sacrifice.” Women were much more willing to believe recycled promises even if they had been broken several times, while the young seemed unaware that all of the promises reviewed in the poll had come around before. Elderly voters were unsure what they remembered.

The Rain Forest Alliance praised politicians who promised to recycle past campaign pledges, calculating that 20,000 trees could be saved during the current election cycle if journalists and editors followed suit and recycled their news coverage. The New York[3] Times editorial board immediately endorsed the idea, pointing out that star columnist Paul Krugman has been recycling the same three columns for years.

“Let’s face it,” recycled political analyst James Carville was overheard mumbling into an open mic at a recent Democratic National Committee fundraiser for socially conscious millionaires and billionaires. “Most voters are dumb and lazy. There is no downside to promising the same things over and over as long as you can make the poor fools believe that they can eat someone else’s lunch before someone else gets a chance to eat theirs.”

Recycled threats and tried-and-true fear mongering initiatives are also expected to play a prominent role in the increasingly negative presidential campaign. “There is something timeless about telling old folks that the other guy is going to take away their Social Security[4],” offered political comedian Jon Stewart. “This is actually pretty ironic when you consider the fact that Congress made off with the entire Social Security trust fund years ago.”

In signs of evident panic as the campaign pledge recycling program gains momentum, Mitt Romney released a 79-point study that showed that campaign pledges have no correlation with actual legislation once a candidate wins office. “In my own personal experience, running for office has nothing to do with actually governing,” stated Romney. “Campaigning and governing are completely different problems requiring completely different solutions. Now that I’m the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, you won’t see me repeating any pledges I made to win the nomination. In fact, it won’t be long before most people start to wonder whether I’m even the same guy.”

“I could think of no better way to outline the central dichotomy that lies at the heart of this historic election,” offered recycled history professor and thrice-married wedding vow breaker Newt Gingrich. “Would voters rather hear a comfortable and familiar set of lies eloquently repeated by a lifelong politician who has proven himself phenomenally ineffective at actually accomplishing anything or a fresh new set of ever-shifting lies delivered by a gaffe prone, part-time politician who has spent most of his career outside of Washington[5] getting rich by methodically achieving his objectives?”